IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: think of proofs as straightforward.
I would prefer that, too. The problem is that very few people I've met have the reasoning abilities required to follow a modus ponens argument.
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
New I'll have to disagree with you on that
I've met a lot of people with the ability but without the patience.

I've met far fewer who could not learn it.

In any case, real mathematicians almost never write out formal proofs. The exercise of doing so strikes me as nearly useless. Knowing that you can is useful, but doing it is not.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Nit.
In any case, real mathematicians almost never write out formal proofs.

Except, of course, those who must publish to keep their positions. They do it at least once in a while. At any rate, I'm certainly glad Andrew Wiles did. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
New Nit denied
The proofs that you see published are closer to vague outlines of how a competent person might construct a formal proof than they are to formal proofs.

And yes, that includes Andrew Wiles. Whose first "outline" turned out to have a hole that a competent person could not be expected to be able to fill in, though he managed to come up with a workaround.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New What's your point?
That professors of mathematics never write formal proofs? Or that professors are not "professionals"? Because, CLEARLY, professors of mathematics (at least at Purdue and North Carolina) *do* write formal proofs and submit them for publication.

[Edit]: BTW, where'd you get your M.S. in Mathematics? Presumeably, at a place where none of your professors wrote formal proofs, right?
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Sept. 21, 2005, 12:39:10 PM EDT
New My point is that...
a formal proof is a very specific thing, and very few proofs that you'll find in the mathematical literature are formal proofs.

If you find this strange, then you either have no familiarity with what real math papers look like, or you don't really know what a formal proof looks like.

This applies as much at Dartmouth College, where I got my masters, as it does at Purdue and North Carolina. Furthermore if you talked to a logician from any of those three universities, I guarantee that they would agree with me.

All of this is well-known within the profession. It even has shown up on the wikipedia, for instance see [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof|http://en.wikipedia....athematical_proof].

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Ah. Dartmouth.
That explains the arrogance. :-p
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
     How would you like to trigonometry without sin/cos/tan? - (Silverlock) - (24)
         That's just wrong. -NT - (bionerd) - (11)
             Agreed if does away with Euclid. - (a6l6e6x) - (10)
                 This is a good thing? - (ben_tilly) - (9)
                     I also learnt complex numbers via an unconventional route. - (static)
                     Re: think of proofs as straightforward. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                         I'll have to disagree with you on that - (ben_tilly) - (5)
                             Nit. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                 Nit denied - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                     What's your point? - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                         My point is that... - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                             Ah. Dartmouth. - (mmoffitt)
                     It was for me. I ate 'em up. - (a6l6e6x)
         What the hell is spread in mathematics? -NT - (warmachine) - (1)
             the value between the over and under, what, you dont bet? -NT - (boxley)
         Fundamental blindness - - (Ashton)
         IOW: "Let's dumb down Math for the Masses" - (imqwerky)
         Choose which operations are difficult - (ben_tilly) - (5)
             I'd have thought most folks can grok Pythagoras, at least - - (Ashton) - (4)
                 Conceptually the problem is easy - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                     So this isn't bogus? - (Silverlock) - (2)
                         Somewhat - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                             Seems to me ... - (drewk)
         Just another coordinate system - (tuberculosis)
         Maths is not singular - (ChrisR)

Blessed are those who expect nothing, for never shall they be disappointed.
70 ms